Re: Bug#1135097: Bug#885698: What licenses should be included in /usr/share/common-licenses?
Russ Allbery <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.debian.devel.general |
|---|---|
| Organization | The Eyrie |
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Gioele Barabucci <[email protected]> writes: > On 02/05/26 04:20, Charles Plessy wrote: >> SIL OFL 1.1 309 > Hi, does license-count distinguish between plain OFL (SPDX: > OFL-1.1-no-RFN) and OFL with Reserved Font Name (SPDX: OFL-1.1-RFN)? Or > does this mean "OFL 1.1 with or without RFN" (SPDX: OFL-1.1)? It does not; this is probably a bug in the script. The script uses very simple regexes and has a real problem with licenses that have variations, usually by merging them all together into one license that is then overcounted. The rules for SIL OFL licenses are just: [qr,SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1\.1, => 'SIL OFL 1.1'], [qr,SIL OPEN FONT LICENSE Version 1\.0, => 'SIL OFL 1.0'], which I suspect is combining OFL-1.1-no-RFN and OFL-1.1-RFN and thus overcounting the number of packages that could use a common license. The Creative Commons licenses may have the same problem still, since I know they also tend to have variations, although I did try to limit CC0-1.0 to just the universal version when detecting it based on the license text rather than a copyright-format file. -- Russ Allbery ([email protected]) <https://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>